It's more dangerous for Oracle than anyone else. You can only be a bully for so long before customers and potential customers become scared of you and go elsewhere. When you scare off customers, you die. I won't implement anything Oracle and my company for just that reason, they're unethical and a liability. Predatory licensing rules, lock in, stick it to the customer pricing, and the potential for litigation at the drop of a hat.
The inertia of large enterprises makes Oracle largely immune to perceived bullying or negative reputation. While the "boots on the ground" developers may be displeased with how Oracle increases friction, project managers and directors are happy to continue renewing their contracts in order to keep their systems "supported."
Oracle are shrugging their shoulders all the way to the bank.
> The inertia of large enterprises makes Oracle largely immune to perceived bullying or negative reputation.
The inertia of current large enterprises using Oracle sure, if the cost to move from Oracle is very large then they'll accept the risk if they even consider it.
Not so sure that applies to new customers though, they won't hemorrhage customers but they could see a slow gradual decline as the odd large enterprise folds, moves to something else etc.
I think if Microsoft continues down the path it appears to have really committed to the potential for .NET (Core) to go toe to toe on Java on none-microsoft platforms is there.
I certainly think that is the intention (along with making Azure a more attractive platform).
Millenials don't want to pay for software tools so Microsoft needs to take .NET to where they are, free OSes and compilers, so that they can earn them back in Azure with *BSD and GNU/Linux VMs.
I wouldn't invest (not even my time) in licenses and staff to work over a platform that won't be maintained in the next 5-10 years.
Stability is better for business.